The primary objective of the center is to assist you in overcoming your dependence on alcohol and achieving sustained recovery.
Published Aug 21, 2023 | 10:04 AM ⚊ Updated Aug 21, 2023 | 10:27 PM
Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre in Hyderabad, along with its doctors, where the commission has issued a directive to provide compensation of ₹9 lakh. (Creative Commons)
Can you be confined to a rehabilitation centre against your wishes? And, in fact, made to do menial tasks? That was the crux of the matter, involving an alcohol-dependent man, that came before the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The commission, while noting that the primary objective of a rehabilitation centre was to help people overcome their dependence on alcohol and achieve a sustained recovery, was of the opinion that it could not do so forcibly.
The commission, in a recent ruling, ordered the Hyderabad-based Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre, along with its doctors, to pay ₹9 lakh as compensation to a man who was, much against his wishes, kept at the centre for an extended period and also assigned menial duties.
Anand Kankipati, a resident of Hyderabad, had lodged a complaint with the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre, located in Secunderabad. He alleged that he was confined in the rehabilitation centre against his wishes.
In his testimony, Anand Kankipati contended that, although his wife disapproved of his drinking, his alcohol consumption was limited to social gatherings.
His wife, however, came to hear about the Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre and, upon making inquiries, was informed that her husband could be freed of his “alcohol addiction” if he underwent their programme.
In January 2013, Kankipati had an altercation with his wife and brother-in-law, which led to his being summoned to a police station.
He recounted that his parents were persuaded by his brother-in-law and wife to agree to admit him to the Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre — the alternative being going to jail.
Kankipati asserted that he was detained at the police station overnight. Subsequently, individuals associated with the Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre forcibly took him, without his consent, to their facility, where he was confined for six months.
“I was restricted from meeting my family members and others who visited the centre. The centre’s staff threatened my family, claiming that I could become aggressive and pose a threat to them. I was coerced into performing menial tasks, such as drying other patients’ undergarments on the centre’s terrace,” read Kankipati’s petition.
Due to his frustration with the centre’s staff, Kankipati raised his voice and sought assistance from the public. He even resorted to cutting his hand with a piece of glass and dropping letters from the terrace to attract public attention.
The commotion led to the intervention of the police, who took him to the Bowenpally police station.
According to Kankipati, the centre’s administration allegedly told his family that he was experiencing withdrawal symptoms and might harm them. Consequently, he was taken back to the centre against his wishes. During this time, he was denied access to his family, and he was not allowed to sign cheques to settle debts and EMIs.
The written response from Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre strongly countered the allegations of forcibly bringing in the complainant with the assistance of alleged goons, labeling it as a deliberate falsehood.
Highlighting the complainant’s severe alcohol addiction, Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre claimed that quitting alcohol was a gradual process for individuals with chronic alcoholic syndrome, chronic petatis, and anti-social personal disorders.
They said that Kankipati’s family members regularly visited him and were content with his progress. Refuting the claim of assigning menial tasks, they point out that the complainant frequently attempted escape from the centre.
Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre asserted that Kankipati lodged complaints against them with various authorities, including the Lokayukta, the Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission (APSHRC), the AP Medical Council, and the high court.
They suggested that this pattern of approaching multiple forums with baseless claims was a tactic to illegitimately gain benefits.
Regarding the incident where the complainant reportedly displayed suicidal tendencies, the management claimed that they informed the police, who then took the complainant into custody.
The centre’s response asserted that neither the complainant nor his family members lodged any complaints against it throughout his stay. It noted that the APSHRC closed the case and gave a clean chit to the centre, as did the Lokayukta.
The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission noted that the admission of Anand Kankipati to the centre did not adhere to the regulations outlined in Sections 15 and 19 of the Mental Health Act of 1987.
Section 15 states that any mentally ill person wishing to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital can do so voluntarily, while Section 19 addresses special circumstances for admission by a relative or friend.
Despite being a major, Anand Kankipati did not express his willingness for admission, and there was no evidence of proper examination by the medical officer in-charge upon his admission. Furthermore, his wife’s consent for his admission, though available, lacked necessary details.
“It shows Anand Kankipati was admitted in the centre, without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 15 and 19 of the Act, when the order of the concerned magistrate is not at all available. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that Anand Kankipati was not admitted in the centre as per law,” observed the commission.
According to the Act, when a relative seeks admission for a mentally ill person, they require approval from two medical practitioners, including one from government service.
However, these protocols weren’t followed in Anand Kankipati’s admission. The centre’s argument for his prolonged stay was based on a certificate by Dr S Dinesh, stating his conditions required further treatment for two or three months.
However, no supporting documents or lab reports were provided for the certificate’s claims.
“Therefore, we are of the view that detaining Anand Kankipati in the centre beyond 90 days amounted to illegal detention or illegal custody,” said the commission.
Anand Kankipati stated that the centre did not have enough doctors and staff to look after the patients and he was made to do menial tasks like sweeping, mopping the floor, cleaning the toilets, utensils, etc, and he was inhumanly treated, including being made to consume food sitting on a toilet commode.
Despite the contrary stance taken by the rehab centre in their written submissions and respective sworn affidavits, Anand Kankipati substantiated his allegations by presenting compelling evidence.
He provided a CD containing voice recordings of conversations in Telugu involving three individuals: Anand Kankipati himself, one Krishna Reddy, a hospital staffer, and Dr Dinesh.
“We are of the view that the CD itself is sufficient to conclude that how badly Anand Kankipati was treated at the centre and how the record cooked up by throwing procedures, rules and regulations to the winds,” said the commission.
An additional piece of evidence provided by Anand Kankipati was an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Ethics Committee of the Telangana State Medical Council.
This extract reveals that despite being given an opportunity, the doctors, Dr Dinesh and Dr Minhag, the in-charge medical officer of the rehab centre, failed to produce records and registers that would demonstrate the centre’s compliance with the provisions of the Act and the State Mental Health Rules, 1990.
The minutes also highlight that Dr Minhag, who holds the centre’s license, was accountable for the treatment offered to its residents.
Upon examination of the records, the verbal submissions, and the written statements presented by the complainant and both doctors, the committee arrived at the conclusion that the centre had misused its license by disregarding the established rules and regulations outlined in the Act.
Additionally, Dr Minhag was found to have inadequately maintained and safeguarded medical records. The committee noted that Dr Minhag’s demanding schedule as a professor at VRK Medical College, as well as his involvement in managing a clinic at Chanchalguda, as well as the rehabilitation centre, contributed to his absence from the centre.
Dr Dinesh’s use of a non-medical degree attached to his name as “Dr S. Dinesh, MS (Psy)” was also brought to the committee’s attention, as he holds qualifications in MBBS and has a Diploma in Psychiatric Medicine, registered with the medical council. As a result, both doctors were subjected to the disciplinary measure of “censure”.
The commission asked the rehabilitation centre and the doctors to pay compensation of ₹9 lakh and also refund the fee charged for Anand Kankipati stay at the centre.
